2D high resolution vs. 3D whole heart myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance

Abstract

Abstract Aims Developments in myocardial perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) allow improvements in spatial resolution and/or myocardial coverage. Whole heart coverage may provide the most accurate assessment of myocardial ischaemic burden, while high spatial resolution is expected to improve detection of subendocardial ischaemia. The objective of this study was to compare myocardial ischaemic burden as depicted by 2D high resolution and 3D whole heart stress myocardial perfusion in patients with coronary artery disease. Methods and results Thirty-eight patients [age 61 ± 8 (21% female)] underwent 2D high resolution (spatial resolution 1.2 mm2) and 3D whole heart (in-plane spatial resolution 2.3 mm2) stress CMR at 3-T in randomized order. Myocardial ischaemic burden (%) was visually quantified as perfusion defect at peak stress perfusion subtracted from subendocardial myocardial scar and expressed as a percentage of the myocardium. Median myocardial ischaemic burden was significantly higher with 2D high resolution compared with 3D whole heart [16.1 (2.0–30.6) vs. 13.4 (5.2–23.2), P = 0.004]. There was excellent agreement between myocardial ischaemic burden (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.81; P < 0.0001), with mean ratio difference between 2D high resolution vs. 3D whole heart 1.28 ± 0.67 (95% limits of agreement −0.03 to 2.59). When using a 10% threshold for a dichotomous result for presence or absence of significant ischaemia, there was moderate agreement between the methods (κ = 0.58, P < 0.0001). Conclusion 2D high resolution and 3D whole heart myocardial perfusion stress CMR are comparable for detection of ischaemia. 2D high resolution gives higher values for myocardial ischaemic burden compared with 3D whole heart, suggesting that 2D high resolution is more sensitive for detection of ischaemia.